Zelensky NATO demand

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What possible benefit to the current NATO members is it for Ukraine, a country embroiled in a war, to join NATO?

Why would want to end up in a mutual defense pact with a country with an ongoing military invasion?

Russia does represent a threat to entire world as an unstable, amoral nuclear super power.

I hear you, but pretending the US is some how moral in contrast is a bit silly.

We’ve used a nuclear bomb in other human beings, and invaded multiple countries for absurd reasons leading to millions of innocent lives lost. Then read the history of the CIA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What possible benefit to the current NATO members is it for Ukraine, a country embroiled in a war, to join NATO?

Why would want to end up in a mutual defense pact with a country with an ongoing military invasion?

Russia does represent a threat to entire world as an unstable, amoral nuclear super power.

I hear you, but pretending the US is some how moral in contrast is a bit silly.

We’ve used a nuclear bomb in other human beings, and invaded multiple countries for absurd reasons leading to millions of innocent lives lost. Then read the history of the CIA.

The nuclear weapons were used to save the world from global domination, whereas Russia is threatening nuclear war because it can't win a military conquest to seize the territory of a former ally.

True that Korea and Vietnam were invaded, which was a shameful part of U.S. history. However, as you can see, the U.S. has learned much from those experiences and now visits both countries amicably as tourists. Granada, Afghanistan, were in response to hostages or 9/11 attack on American soil.

Iraq was pushed by the Republican party, and now we may know why?

Sorry Boris, your propaganda is lacking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The point is, Boris, what do you think will happen to Russia if the Ukraine War continues? What about a nuclear war?

If you truly love Russia, shouldn't you help stop the war?

Or is Russia just a fading civilization?

What do you want for Russia's children?

You're talking to voices in your head.

It is absolutely true. You can't deny it. You can't refute it. There is nothing in your propaganda quiver to shoot it full of holes. It's fact. It's reality. You want to claim you do not see what will clearly happen and yes, it is inevitable without a massive change in policy and philosophy.

Putin will not collect Russians from all over the world into his great dominion. As the world can plainly see, many Russians don't want to take over Ukraine.

"Over 194,000 Russians had entered Kazakhstan, Georgia and Finland by Tuesday. "
https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-putin-estonia-kazakhstan-finland-f99d72765b337307355cb7f6a6a8842a

True, there are those still patriotic and stupid enough to believe Russian news, the last of this generation's lemmings. But Russia is now scraping the bottom of that barrel and the children who will become of military age soon are about HALF THE NUMBER of this generation. Do the math Boris. What will happen if the far-right ultranationalist Chinese perceive Russia to be weak? How well will that go?

Do you like chess, Boris? If you were to play chess right now, what would your next move be? Russian chess wisdom is the person who attacks first and stays on the attack usually wins. The problem with Russian obsession with chess is that it assumes both sides start out equally, that the playing field is always 8x8, and pieces taken off the board don't come back to haunt you.

Putin's best move right now is to withdraw and reinforce. It's not a good move for him, but it would give a chance to re-strategize, or reach out (not strike out) into new directions, such as internally to reconsolidate his power now that he sees who his enemies are. The Fifth Column within Russia appears to be his own ultranationalists, who will most certainly turn against him soon. Are you one of those ultranationalists, Boris? Or are you nerus or vyrus who interacts to much with the West to ever be trusted again? If so, you know very well how your own Party plays their chess game. Sacrifices must be made. Good luck to you - I hope you are able stay in the game.

[Anonymous]

The moment someone here calls someone else ‘Boris’, they show their true personality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What possible benefit to the current NATO members is it for Ukraine, a country embroiled in a war, to join NATO?

Why would want to end up in a mutual defense pact with a country with an ongoing military invasion?

Russia does represent a threat to entire world as an unstable, amoral nuclear super power.

I hear you, but pretending the US is some how moral in contrast is a bit silly.

We’ve used a nuclear bomb in other human beings, and invaded multiple countries for absurd reasons leading to millions of innocent lives lost. Then read the history of the CIA.

The nuclear weapons were used to save the world from global domination, whereas Russia is threatening nuclear war because it can't win a military conquest to seize the territory of a former ally.

True that Korea and Vietnam were invaded, which was a shameful part of U.S. history. However, as you can see, the U.S. has learned much from those experiences and now visits both countries amicably as tourists. Granada, Afghanistan, were in response to hostages or 9/11 attack on American soil.

Iraq was pushed by the Republican party, and now we may know why?

Sorry Boris, your propaganda is lacking.

Why on Iraq other than Bush was mad at the guy that his daddy opposed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What possible benefit to the current NATO members is it for Ukraine, a country embroiled in a war, to join NATO?

Why would want to end up in a mutual defense pact with a country with an ongoing military invasion?

Russia does represent a threat to entire world as an unstable, amoral nuclear super power.

I hear you, but pretending the US is some how moral in contrast is a bit silly.

We’ve used a nuclear bomb in other human beings, and invaded multiple countries for absurd reasons leading to millions of innocent lives lost. Then read the history of the CIA.

The nuclear weapons were used to save the world from global domination, whereas Russia is threatening nuclear war because it can't win a military conquest to seize the territory of a former ally.

True that Korea and Vietnam were invaded, which was a shameful part of U.S. history. However, as you can see, the U.S. has learned much from those experiences and now visits both countries amicably as tourists. Granada, Afghanistan, were in response to hostages or 9/11 attack on American soil.

Iraq was pushed by the Republican party, and now we may know why?

Sorry Boris, your propaganda is lacking.

The Japanese were not going to dominate the world. Germany had already surrended when we dropped the bombs. The bombs were used solely to prevent the loss of more American soldiers at the cost of targeting non-combatants. The ethics are this decision are still questioned today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What possible benefit to the current NATO members is it for Ukraine, a country embroiled in a war, to join NATO?

Why would want to end up in a mutual defense pact with a country with an ongoing military invasion?

Russia does represent a threat to entire world as an unstable, amoral nuclear super power.

I hear you, but pretending the US is some how moral in contrast is a bit silly.

We’ve used a nuclear bomb in other human beings, and invaded multiple countries for absurd reasons leading to millions of innocent lives lost. Then read the history of the CIA.

The nuclear weapons were used to save the world from global domination, whereas Russia is threatening nuclear war because it can't win a military conquest to seize the territory of a former ally.

True that Korea and Vietnam were invaded, which was a shameful part of U.S. history. However, as you can see, the U.S. has learned much from those experiences and now visits both countries amicably as tourists. Granada, Afghanistan, were in response to hostages or 9/11 attack on American soil.

Iraq was pushed by the Republican party, and now we may know why?

Sorry Boris, your propaganda is lacking.

The Japanese were not going to dominate the world. Germany had already surrended when we dropped the bombs. The bombs were used solely to prevent the loss of more American soldiers at the cost of targeting non-combatants. The ethics are this decision are still questioned today.

No the ethics are not in question today. There would have been a magnitude great civilian death count with a US invasion of Japan.

A study done for Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that invading Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The moment someone here calls someone else ‘Boris’, they show their true personality.

Had to make sure the right person got the message, no? Isn't that why 'Boris' calls out the 'Ukies' or 'хохол', is it not? Anonymous boards get so confusing sometimes.

Besides, no matter what is said, I believe the Russian population statistics make it quite clear what is currently happening in Russia. Putin's cult of personality is failing and no number of 'motherhood medals' to pop out quantity over quality will change the outcome. Only a fundamental change in policy and philosophy can reverse the trend, and he's too old to see it through.

The real question is what will happen to all the deep-cover agents pumped into the U.S. these past 15'ish years? They're either silenced and swept away by nuclear missiles, or silenced by their own people because they know too much and would prove an embarrassment or threat, or maybe will be traded away as future bargaining chips once Putin passes to earn goodwill with the West? Their future doesn't look too bright no matter how you look at it. The smart ones are probably already cutting deals with the FBI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The moment someone here calls someone else ‘Boris’, they show their true personality.

I called the PP Boris because he first called me Jimmy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What possible benefit to the current NATO members is it for Ukraine, a country embroiled in a war, to join NATO?

Why would want to end up in a mutual defense pact with a country with an ongoing military invasion?

Russia does represent a threat to entire world as an unstable, amoral nuclear super power.

I hear you, but pretending the US is some how moral in contrast is a bit silly.

We’ve used a nuclear bomb in other human beings, and invaded multiple countries for absurd reasons leading to millions of innocent lives lost. Then read the history of the CIA.

Good point. I guess I do live in a glass house.

And it has been disheartening seeing so many checks and balances to American democracy crack so quickly over the past 6 years or so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What possible benefit to the current NATO members is it for Ukraine, a country embroiled in a war, to join NATO?

Why would want to end up in a mutual defense pact with a country with an ongoing military invasion?

Russia does represent a threat to entire world as an unstable, amoral nuclear super power.

I hear you, but pretending the US is some how moral in contrast is a bit silly.

We’ve used a nuclear bomb in other human beings, and invaded multiple countries for absurd reasons leading to millions of innocent lives lost. Then read the history of the CIA.

The nuclear weapons were used to save the world from global domination, whereas Russia is threatening nuclear war because it can't win a military conquest to seize the territory of a former ally.

True that Korea and Vietnam were invaded, which was a shameful part of U.S. history. However, as you can see, the U.S. has learned much from those experiences and now visits both countries amicably as tourists. Granada, Afghanistan, were in response to hostages or 9/11 attack on American soil.

Iraq was pushed by the Republican party, and now we may know why?

Sorry Boris, your propaganda is lacking.

The Japanese were not going to dominate the world. Germany had already surrended when we dropped the bombs. The bombs were used solely to prevent the loss of more American soldiers at the cost of targeting non-combatants. The ethics are this decision are still questioned today.

No the ethics are not in question today. There would have been a magnitude great civilian death count with a US invasion of Japan.

A study done for Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that invading Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities.

The ethics and value of deliberately targeting non-combatants are definitely debated today. Legitimate points can be made by both sides. If there is no debate on the subject why then did we not simply turn the Sunni Triangle into glass? Why did we not do the same to Hanoi? Why did we not nuke terrorist safe-havens in Afghanistan? Why did we choose failed strategies whack-a-mole that led to military defeat?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What possible benefit to the current NATO members is it for Ukraine, a country embroiled in a war, to join NATO?

Why would want to end up in a mutual defense pact with a country with an ongoing military invasion?

Russia does represent a threat to entire world as an unstable, amoral nuclear super power.

I hear you, but pretending the US is some how moral in contrast is a bit silly.

We’ve used a nuclear bomb in other human beings, and invaded multiple countries for absurd reasons leading to millions of innocent lives lost. Then read the history of the CIA.

The nuclear weapons were used to save the world from global domination, whereas Russia is threatening nuclear war because it can't win a military conquest to seize the territory of a former ally.

True that Korea and Vietnam were invaded, which was a shameful part of U.S. history. However, as you can see, the U.S. has learned much from those experiences and now visits both countries amicably as tourists. Granada, Afghanistan, were in response to hostages or 9/11 attack on American soil.

Iraq was pushed by the Republican party, and now we may know why?

Sorry Boris, your propaganda is lacking.

The Japanese were not going to dominate the world. Germany had already surrended when we dropped the bombs. The bombs were used solely to prevent the loss of more American soldiers at the cost of targeting non-combatants. The ethics are this decision are still questioned today.

No the ethics are not in question today. There would have been a magnitude great civilian death count with a US invasion of Japan.

A study done for Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that invading Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities.

The ethics and value of deliberately targeting non-combatants are definitely debated today. Legitimate points can be made by both sides. If there is no debate on the subject why then did we not simply turn the Sunni Triangle into glass? Why did we not do the same to Hanoi? Why did we not nuke terrorist safe-havens in Afghanistan? Why did we choose failed strategies whack-a-mole that led to military defeat?

DP. The ethics are certainly being debated today - but both of you are skipping the deterrence factor, that may have only been a minor (or major) consideration at the time, but has been immensely valuable worldwide and has saved millions of lives, if not more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What possible benefit to the current NATO members is it for Ukraine, a country embroiled in a war, to join NATO?

Why would want to end up in a mutual defense pact with a country with an ongoing military invasion?

Russia does represent a threat to entire world as an unstable, amoral nuclear super power.

I hear you, but pretending the US is some how moral in contrast is a bit silly.

We’ve used a nuclear bomb in other human beings, and invaded multiple countries for absurd reasons leading to millions of innocent lives lost. Then read the history of the CIA.

The nuclear weapons were used to save the world from global domination, whereas Russia is threatening nuclear war because it can't win a military conquest to seize the territory of a former ally.

True that Korea and Vietnam were invaded, which was a shameful part of U.S. history. However, as you can see, the U.S. has learned much from those experiences and now visits both countries amicably as tourists. Granada, Afghanistan, were in response to hostages or 9/11 attack on American soil.

Iraq was pushed by the Republican party, and now we may know why?

Sorry Boris, your propaganda is lacking.

The Japanese were not going to dominate the world. Germany had already surrended when we dropped the bombs. The bombs were used solely to prevent the loss of more American soldiers at the cost of targeting non-combatants. The ethics are this decision are still questioned today.

No the ethics are not in question today. There would have been a magnitude great civilian death count with a US invasion of Japan.

A study done for Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that invading Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities.

The ethics and value of deliberately targeting non-combatants are definitely debated today. Legitimate points can be made by both sides. If there is no debate on the subject why then did we not simply turn the Sunni Triangle into glass? Why did we not do the same to Hanoi? Why did we not nuke terrorist safe-havens in Afghanistan? Why did we choose failed strategies whack-a-mole that led to military defeat?

DP. The ethics are certainly being debated today - but both of you are skipping the deterrence factor, that may have only been a minor (or major) consideration at the time, but has been immensely valuable worldwide and has saved millions of lives, if not more.

DP

That is a very good point .., I remember that peace summits attended by brainy powerful people in the 80s and 90s emphasized the role of fear of nuclear war for preventing WW3.

However, in case of Putin I am not sure how reliable deterrence is. When leaders are insane with empire lust, have been corrupted by decades of ultimate power and killed off or jailed any viable opposition, have no morality in terms of how their decisions may hurt innocents, does deterrence really factor in?

[Anonymous]

Biden has given Zelensky a blank check to drive us into nuclear war. Happy Sunday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What possible benefit to the current NATO members is it for Ukraine, a country embroiled in a war, to join NATO?

Why would want to end up in a mutual defense pact with a country with an ongoing military invasion?

Russia does represent a threat to entire world as an unstable, amoral nuclear super power.

I hear you, but pretending the US is some how moral in contrast is a bit silly.

We’ve used a nuclear bomb in other human beings, and invaded multiple countries for absurd reasons leading to millions of innocent lives lost. Then read the history of the CIA.

The nuclear weapons were used to save the world from global domination, whereas Russia is threatening nuclear war because it can't win a military conquest to seize the territory of a former ally.

True that Korea and Vietnam were invaded, which was a shameful part of U.S. history. However, as you can see, the U.S. has learned much from those experiences and now visits both countries amicably as tourists. Granada, Afghanistan, were in response to hostages or 9/11 attack on American soil.

Iraq was pushed by the Republican party, and now we may know why?

Sorry Boris, your propaganda is lacking.

The Japanese were not going to dominate the world. Germany had already surrended when we dropped the bombs. The bombs were used solely to prevent the loss of more American soldiers at the cost of targeting non-combatants. The ethics are this decision are still questioned today.

No the ethics are not in question today. There would have been a magnitude great civilian death count with a US invasion of Japan.

A study done for Stimson's staff by William Shockley estimated that invading Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities.

The ethics and value of deliberately targeting non-combatants are definitely debated today. Legitimate points can be made by both sides. If there is no debate on the subject why then did we not simply turn the Sunni Triangle into glass? Why did we not do the same to Hanoi? Why did we not nuke terrorist safe-havens in Afghanistan? Why did we choose failed strategies whack-a-mole that led to military defeat?

DP. The ethics are certainly being debated today - but both of you are skipping the deterrence factor, that may have only been a minor (or major) consideration at the time, but has been immensely valuable worldwide and has saved millions of lives, if not more.

Perhaps but deterrence leads to arms races and costly stockpile buildup as nations seek to take advantage of technological gains. It could also be argued that the deterrence factor leads to proliferation as nations outside the club (the DPRK, Iran, Israel) seek their own arsenal to guarantee their own security. We initiated a failed war of aggression in Iraq based in part on the lie that Hussein was arming with nuclear weapons.